440 2007 International Reading Association (pp. 440450) doi:10.1598/RT.60.5.4
KATHLEEN A . J. MOHRERIC S. MOHR
Extending English-language learners classroom interactions
using the Response Protocol
The Response Protocol is one way to
support teachers efforts to increase
engagement among ELLs in classroom
In order to be proficient and productive students,English-language learners (ELLs) need manyopportunities to interact in social and academicsituations. Effective teachers encourage their stu-dents participation in classroom discussions, wel-come their contributions, and motivate them bysuch practices (Cazden, 2001; Stipek, 2002).However, many educators often allow their less pro-ficient students to remain silent or to participate lessthan their English-fluent peers (Laosa, 1977;Penfield, 1987; Schinke-Llano, 1983; Wilhelm,Contreras, & Mohr, 2004). I (Mohr, first author) re-cently participated in a study focusing on howmainstream classroom teachers helped Spanish-speaking immigrant students become successful atschool. During the observations, I noticed that theteachers missed many opportunities to help ELLscommunicate in class, allowing them to be less in-volved in oral interactions.
A byproduct of that study was the analysis presented in this article. We considered what class-room teachers could do to more fully engage ELLs in teacherstudent interactions, especially dur-ing teacher-led question-and-answer sequences.Essentially, teachers can elicit more from the lessproficient or reticent students if they consider vari-ous response options and then enlarge their response
repertoires in order to encourage students partici-pation and help develop their language proficiencies.
There are several reasons why ELLs may strug-gle to respond appropriately to teachers promptsand questions. Certainly, not all teacher questionsare clearly understood by students, and, if such is thecase, teachers should rephrase or clarify queries inorder to facilitate student comprehension. Teachersmay also not wait long enough for students to con-sider a question and formulate a response (Nystrand,Gamoran, Kachure, & Prendergast, 1997; Rowe,1974). In addition, while first-language learning islargely motivated by a childs intrinsic desire to so-cialize, second-language learning often needs moreextrinsic influence (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983).Wong Fillmores (1991) model of second-languagelearning identified three motivational componentsthat contribute to student progress: interest from thelearners, proficient speakers who support and inter-act with the learners, and an environment that sup-ports relationships between learners and proficientspeakers. Students may not wish to participate if theteacher expects them simply to recite low-levelknowledge or if the teacher sets low expectations forthe students. Clarity, wait time, higher order think-ing, and higher expectations are factors that influ-ence the quality of teacher interactions with allstudents, but some factors pertain more specificallyto the participation of ELLs.
Immigrant students may come from culturesthat do not expect students to ask or answer ques-tions during classroom discussions. These studentsoften perceive the teacher to have elevated statusand think that, as students, they should respectfullylistenrather than talkin the company of their
Extending English-language learners classroom interactions using the Response Protocol 441
teachers. Because U.S. classrooms are often lessformal (e.g., teachers sitting on the floor, studentsworking in groups) than their previous educationalenvironments, immigrant students sometimes take awhile to adapt to the typical questionanswer se-quence that is common there. In addition, language-acquisition theory hypothesizes that languagelearners experience an initial silent period, whichis time spent receiving the language as input, priorto developing language-production skills (Krashen& Terrell, 1983; Saville-Troike, 1988). Some teach-ers are aware of these stages and respect thelanguage-acquisition process by not calling on theirELLs. In order to not embarrass or intimidate theirELL students, however, teachers sometimes con-tinue to give dispensations when it comes to re-sponding in class. I have observed that manystudents new to U.S. culture and its educational sys-tem, and students who are timid or reluctant for anyreason, often do not participate readily in class dis-cussions and thereby assume a more passive role inclassroom interactions.
Typical classroomsWhile classroom discourse events vary, re-
search has indicated that teacher talk dominatesclassroom communication. Edwards and Mercer(1987) documented that teachers perform 76% ofclassroom talk. Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, and Merino(1986) categorized teacher talk as consisting of ex-planations, questions, commands, modeling, andfeedback. Other studies of teacher discourse in pri-mary grades indicated that teacher talk is often man-agerial rather than conversational in nature (e.g.,Cummins, 1994). Forestal (1990) noted that 60% ofteacher talk involved asking questions, primarilydisplay questions, which expect students to recallinformation taught previously by the teacher. In onestudy of effective primary teachers of literacy, Mohr(1998) tallied the number of questions asked by theteachers in the study at almost 100 per hour.Therefore, the preponderance of teacher talk and theteachers use of questions continue as factors in howmuch classroom talk time is shared with students;both the quantity and quality of such interactionsdeserve scrutiny. For example, there are differencesbetween direct and indirect instruction; the nature oflarge-group discussion requires more guidance
from the teacher than do small-group interactions(Johnston, 2004), and English-language learnersmay need different support in their communicationefforts than do fluent English speakers. Thus, as-pects of teacher-led discussions and discourse pat-terns warrant our continued attention.
Asking and answering questions are typical in-teractions and are expected in most classrooms(Weber & Longhi-Chirlin, 2001). A very commonexchange is referred to as the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequence (Mehan, 1979), similarto what Tharp and Gallimore (1988) termed recita-tion questioning. However, the IRE routine may notoften be supportive of ELLs because it is a conver-gent process of seeking one right answer. ELLs maynot be able to verbalize that answer in a teacher-expected manner (Fitzgerald, 1993; Jimnez,Garca, & Pearson, 1996). Wells and Chang-Wells(1992) recommended that the third component ofsuch exchanges be feedback, rather than evaluation,so that the teacher does more than praise or evalu-ate the students response. Such feedback canachieve a variety of goalsit can clarify, connect,and elaborate the verbal interactions between teach-ers and students and among students themselves.
Cazden (2001) differentiated teachers displayquestions from exploratory queries. Display ques-tions have specific and generally agreed-upon an-swers, while exploratory talk is speaking withoutthe answers fully intact (p. 170). Display queriesfunction to confirm the teachers instruction, whilethe latter is more confirming of students as they ex-ercise self-expression and refine their thinking. AsCazden also noted, If the potentialities of class-room discourse, in which students talk more andin more varied ways, are significant for all students,then we have to pay careful attention to who speaksand who receives thoughtful responses (p. 5).
Another well-recognized discourse structureis the instructional conversation (Goldenberg,1993; Perez, 1996; Stipek, 2002; Williams, 2001).Goldenberg characterized an instructional conver-sation as excellent discussion that is interesting, en-gaging, relevant to students, and discerniblethroughout and that has a high level of participationthat builds upon, challenges, extends, and variesthe roles of the participants (teacher and students).One key role of the teacher in instructional con-versations is what Perez called conversational up-takes, connective comments that respect the student
The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 5 February 2007442
and afford linguistic scaffolds that foster more andbetter discussion of academic topics. As Reyes,Scribner, and Scribner (1999) pointed out, teach-ers who apply the concept of instructional conver-sations embrace the philosophy that talking andthinking go together, and assume that the studentmay have something to say beyond what the stu-dents teacher or peer is thinking or already knows(p. 202). English-language learners may not havesufficient English to readily express complex ideas,so teachers must respond in ways that facilitateELLs efforts to share their thinking and contributetheir voices to classroom communication.
In academic settings, both questionanswerand conversational formats entail the use of aca-demic language. Even students who are conversa-tionally proficient need exposure to and practicewith academic language in order to function suc-cessfully at school (Daz-Rico, 2004; Weber &Longhi-Chirlin, 2001). This important aspect ofschool success is also known as cognitive academ-ic language proficiency (CALP). Academic lan-guage or CALP in English-speaking classrooms ischaracterized by Latinate vocabulary; subordinategrammatical constructions (e.g., participial phras-es, dependent clauses); less reliance on temporalcurrency (discussing generalizations, rather thanspecific events); and rhetorical and cohesive de-vices, such as conjunctions and figurative language(Wong Fillmore, 2002). These linguistic compe-tencies can be greatly enhanced by wide readingbut are generally not learned apart from schoolingprocesses. It is the teachers responsibility, then, tomodel and su